Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richardson v. Tubb

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

September 15, 2017

CELESTAN RICHARDSON
v.
SCOTT TUBB - OFFICE OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, ET AL.

         SECTION: “G” (3)

          ORDER

          NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Court received correspondence from Plaintiff that was docketed as a Motion for Reconsideration.[1] On August 25, 2017, the Court approved the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which no objection was filed, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims, with prejudice.[2] In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues only that his claims are supported by the facts and evidence as stated in the lawsuit.[3]

         Law and Analysis

         A. Legal Standard

         Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Federal Rules “do not recognize a ‘motion for reconsideration' in haec verba, ”[4] it has consistently recognized that such a motion may challenge a judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), or 60(b).[5] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) also allows courts to alter or amend its judgments after entry. The Court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, but must “strike the proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.”[6] This Court's discretion is further bounded by the Fifth Circuit's instruction that reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly, ”[7] with relief being warranted only when the basis for relief is “clearly establish[ed].”[8]Courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana have generally considered four factors in deciding motions for reconsideration under the Rule 59(e) standard:

(1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; or
(4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.[9]

         A motion for reconsideration, “‘[is] not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments . . . .'”[10] Instead, such motions “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”[11] “It is well settled that motions for reconsideration should not be used . . . to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party.”[12] When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.[13]

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff's “story is the only one that matches the facts, ” and that “all the evidence is clearly stated in my lawsuit and you can see the evidence through my testimony.”[14]Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does Plaintiff identify a manifest error of law or fact that would warrant granting the motion. Rather, Plaintiff's motion seeks only to rehash evidence previously consider by the Court.

         As stated supra, the Court has considerable discretion when determining if arguments presented in a motion for reconsideration merit reversing the Court's prior decisions.[15] Plaintiff has not identified any evidence that merits reconsideration, nor any argument that reconsideration is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice or correct a manifest error of fact or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.